ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.

  • To: Bhavin Turakhia <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.
  • From: elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 05:16:45 -0500
  • Cc: ross@xxxxxxxxxx, "'Robert F. Connelly'" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, "'RC Voting Members'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <200412230131.iBN1Vv428499@pechora.icann.org>
  • References: <200412230131.iBN1Vv428499@pechora.icann.org>
  • Reply-to: enoss@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Macintosh/20040502)

here is my acceptance (from safari and lucky to find some stray packets :-)). I accept this nomination and would be proud to serve on nomcom.

As for conflict of interest, I am not aware of an potential conflicts of interest that would interfere with my election to the nominating committee. Should my situation or interests change, I will immediately disclose as much for review by the constituency.

I apologize for not including a longer statement as to my qualifications, but right now I am blowing ants off of my keyboard (hoping they don't sneak in). Thanks all.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays.


Bhavin Turakhia wrote:
I believe elliotts nomination should be accepted too. And this brings me to
one more point. Maybe the bylaw revision committee can incorporate the
ability to provide such flexibility by a decision from the ex-com

- bhavin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:40 AM
To: Robert F. Connelly
Cc: Registrars Constituency; RC Voting Members
Subject: Re: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.

Robert F. Connelly wrote:

Nomcom Representative:

Nominations were opened on 1 December 2004. Tom Barrett was nominated on 13 December 2004, he accepted and was seconded. He has submitted his conflict of interest statement.

Elliot Noss was nominated and seconded on 20 December 2004.

We have
not received his acceptance and conflict of interest statement.


The Rules are confusing because they refer to a nomination as a "motion". The text had been cut and pasted from the section on Motions. Note the reference in red, *call for motion and call for discussion*, which make little sense for a nomination. However, it would appear that the drafters intended to have nominations

held open
for 14 days. That said, Elliot's nomination came after the

I propose that we either elect Tom Barrett by acclamation

or that I post a ballot with only one candidate.

I await your comments.

I'd like to formally request a "bend" of the rules to allow Elliot's nomination. In addition to a heavy travel schedule this month, I've been laid up with a minor, but confining, injury. As a result, I haven't been in the office since November :) Compounding this is the fact that Elliot is still in Africa and hasn't had great connectivity over the past week. Although I know he has every intention of accepting his nomination and I'd do it on his behalf if I could, I can't guarantee when he will do so.

I know this sounds like a hard luck story, but these are the facts :). Special consideration in this instance would be appreciated, but I also understand this might not be possible.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: http://www.byte.org

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>